Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

GAN Reviewer of the "Week" for 4/28/2008 through 5/10/2008

Ok, so it's actually about two weeks, but anyway, here's the stats: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for 4/28/2008 through 5/10/2008. Dihydrogen Monoxide is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:

1. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)
2. GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs)
3. Eustress (talk · contribs)
4. Nikki311 (talk · contribs)
5. Redmarkviolinist (talk · contribs)

Additionally, it's also worth noting that, during the same period, the top two nominators were:

1. Mitchazenia (talk · contribs)
2. Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs)

GA reviews in multiple section headers on talk pages

Having taken a second look at several recent GA passes in the past couple of weeks, I've noticed somewhat of a trend with GA reviews that doesn't seem to work real well. It appears that many reviewers are doing reviews and then updating comments later on in new main section headers (e.g. one header saying something like ==GA Review==, and then later on, a new section header: ==GA passed==. Sometimes the GA pass is placed later on in the talk page, after other, unrelated, comments have been added to the talk page. I think this is going to seriously confuse things as talk pages and GA reviews are archived, and I think it would be best if reviewers kept all comments related to a single GA review in one main section header (e.g. within one set of '==').

Ultimately, I think it would be best if GA reviews were done on a subpage of article talk, like 'Talk:Article/GA1', but for the time being it would be best if reviewers could keep their comments together. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think if a subpage was created. The review for Grand Theft Auto IV was archived to Archive 12 on the talkpage without the article being passed/failed. I've had to manually copy/paste it back into the main talkpage because the GA nomination was still on hold. See [1][2][3] for what I mean. D.M.N. (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that myself. It got archived by one of the automatic archiving bots, so I think it was unintentional. But I agree, it may be useful to have a subpage to hold the GAN review so that it can be transcluded etc. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Several regular reviewers have suggested reviews be conducted on a subpage. I support the idea. It would make GA reviewers easier to track and help prevent anomalies like articles being listed as GAs without receiving a review. However, how will we handle reviews conducted before this change is made? Will we track down the reviews and move them to subpages? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a bot-tracking of old reviews is possible, so I'd say we'll just leave them unless someone is really bored. I'm going to (if I remember) start doing GA reviews on subpages. Is anyone willing to whip up a quick how-to guideline so we all do it in similar ways? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, the GAN template needs altering, so that by adding the "on review" field, a subpage is immediately created (see MilHist peer review for example). In the meantime, how about pasting this on the article talk page:

==GA review==
The review of this article is currently taking place at [[/GA review]], and is transcluded below. 
{{Talk:<article name>/GA review}}

And remember to start the subpage with:

===GA review (n)===

So there's a edit tab for transcluded section. Does that work? (Alter it or ignore it if it doesn't.) Gwinva (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's great. G-guy is our template whiz, and I can make some automessages for myself (and others) once he's done (unless there are objections). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Also, watching a GAN subpage would be a hell of a lot easier than a popular article's talkpage.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 10:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

as long as the instructions and the set up are easy it would be great to have a sub page. Please someone set it up and say this works if you do this. When it comes to this for me I am lost. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 10:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No objections here; this is an uncontroversial and quick'n'easy change, so I agree we should go right ahead. EyeSerene^talk 11:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just thought, what about a GAN that fails, gets resubmitted, then approved? The templates would need to be able to cope with new GAN reviews at say /GA review 2 etc.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 11:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It may need substing then, the way the PR template does. But yeah, it's doable. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added "Talk:" to the transclusion paste format above (don't want all these to end up in mainspace!). Also, I suggest developing categories to add to the subpage, eg. Category:Arts GA reviews; Category:TV GA reviews (etc). Then it's easy to locate and manage all old reviews for re-review, quality control, project management and so forth. They could also be categorised by date, too (Category:GA reviews May 2008. Using the article name in the subpage title means the subpage's hatnote leads directly back to the talk page; whereas using GA project in the subpage title leads back to the project. Gwinva (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Subpage implementation (section break)

(←) Yes the template would have to be substituted in order to find the next free review page. This is not difficult to do, but raises a few subtle questions. First, who does the work, nominator or reviewer? Second, what is the template called? Third, is the review on an article talk subpage or on a subpage of Wikipedia:Good article nominations? The discussion here has focused on article talk, and Gwinva has given one advantage of this (the hatnote): a more detailed discussion can be found here.

To be analogous with peer review and GAR processes, I'd really like the template substitution to be made by the nominator, using something like {{subst:GAN|subtopic=}}. This would produce a link to create the subpage. The actual creation of the subpage, and the transclusion of the subpage could be done either by nominator or reviewer, or the nominator could create the subpage and the reviewer could transclude it. Concerning the template names, at the moment we can't call the substituted template "GAN", because that is the current name of the talk page header template. My own preference is to rename the current talk page header template, but that means that someone has to do an AWB job to rename GAN on the 200+ current nominations. This would produce a smoother and more consistent system long term, however.

Concerning the transclusion onto article talk, I think it is better to put all the text on the subpage. This text can be generated automatically when the subpage is created, saving work for the reviewer. It would also avoid the need for a level 3 section header, as the level two section header would link to the subpage. Finally, once the review is over, the transclusion onto the talk page could be removed: there are advantages and disadvantages to this, so it needs to be discussed.

EyeSerene says "this is an uncontroversial and quick'n'easy change": I agree there is now clear consensus for subpage reviews, and the change is fairly straightforward, but the devil is in the details, and we should try to get them right. Geometry guy 20:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree about the headers/all the text on the subpage; my version above was only meant to illustrate a temporary cut and paste measure for setting up subpages while we await the template changes. The template could also be designed to automatically categorise the subpage (along the lines suggested above) – the existing GAN template has topic and date fields. If the nominator sets up the subpage, the date-stamped topic fields would automatically place it in categories similar to those found at WP:GAN; reviewer changes the status to "on review"→ fed into new category; "passed/failed" → final categories. Categories could also be used to manage holds, 2nd opinions and so forth. In other words, the manual WP:GAN pages is replaced by automated category systems; reviewers can browse categories as easily as a centralised list. All activity occurs through the talk page's template, so there's not the current problems associated with manual alteration on several pages (which can result in some being missed) And date stamping (of passes) allows flagging for re-review after set periods. Gwinva (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, OK, a relatively quick'n'easy change, and possibly with the category suggestions Gwinva mentions, a big step towards a properly automated process. However, it may be counter-productive to try and change too much all at once; perhaps we should just implement the uncontroversial stuff first ;)

I too propose that the nominator should subst the template - it would basically be a copy/paste/edit parameter(s), so no more complex than the current nominating system. I don't think it matters much if the nominator then goes on to create the review page, or who transcludes it back - maybe this would be more logically done by the reviewer, but the nominator may wish to leave pre-review comments, so I don't think we should be prescriptive about that.

Regarding template naming, GAN seems logical, despite having to change all the current noms. Yes, there's still agreement to reach on where the review page goes - my preference is for project namespace, simply for consistency with GAN and other assessment processes, but Gwinva has some good arguments and ultimately I don't believe it matters that much. Accountability, which after all is the point of all this, is equally well served either way. EyeSerene^talk 21:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Gwinva is running ahead a bit. The subtopic parameter can certainly categorize the subpage, the template can get the date of the nomination automatically (no field necessary), and the category data Gwinva describes could be used to generate WP:GAN automatically using a very simple bot (I've posted on this many times, for those who don't know). However, as Dr. Cash has indicated elsewhere, we need to move in stages. The first step is to decide on a workable subpage system. Hence my questions about the details, and reference to the related thread at WT:GA. Geometry guy 21:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, do we need to transsclude the review on the talk page, or just link to it from the templated nom box at the top of the talk page? Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been very strong preferences expressed in past discussions on this that reviews should still take place (or at least give the appearance of taking place) on the article talk page, for reasons of convenience, transparency, collaboration etc. I think it's just been assumed that no-one has changed their minds about this. EyeSerene^talk 22:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, I was getting carried away; there's no need to complicate a straight forward discussion about naming. Most people have read/taken part in the various naming discussions, and there are advantages and disadvantages to each. Why not take a quick straw poll to see where the general consensus/preferences lie? Gwinva (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I just did a subpage style review at Talk:Dr._Dre#GA_review, if anyone wants to comment. G-guy, your ideas seem good. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to work very well, and gives the best of both worlds; visibility on the article's talk page and a permanent archive of the review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So the new page review name system is going to combine GAN and GAR together? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if there could be general agreement on at least the first small step here. Like H₂O and a few others, I've started archiving GA reviews, and I've been using Talk:articlename/GAn. Is that the convention we're going to go with? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've used DHMO's example to demonstrate a first draft of the proposed format, assuming we use article talk subpages rather than subpages of WP:Good article nominations. This choice means that individual delists/reassessments will be stored together with GAN reviews as article talk subpages. If anyone wants to make the case for subpages of WP:Good article nominations, please speak now: in that approach, individual delists/reassessments would be subpages of WP:Good article reassessment, along with community GAR discusssions. A few editors, including Ohana and EyeSerene, expressed a mild preference for the second approach in this thread, but my belief is that the consensus here is for article talk subpages, and that is what I will implement unless arguments are made to the contrary now! In my view it makes very little difference and I'm happy to implement either approach, but if there is consensus for article talk subpages, I'm willing to go ahead tomorrow. If I'm in a really good mood, I might even do the AWB job: I did the last one to get the current {{GAN}} working. Ironically though, what would put me in a really good mood is someone else volunteering to do it :-) Geometry guy 20:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk subpage has my vote. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 06:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mine too. G-guy, don't waste your time AWBing it, just get a bot (Giggabot waves). Email me the xmls and I'll do it ASAP (g1ggyman@gmail.com). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, just write the instructions out in nice easy to understand language on the GAN page so I can adapt my reviews to the current usage. Remember, some of us aren't computer people, please make them understandable to folks who think the 15th century is "modern". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope instruction-writing will be a collaborative effort. Remember, this is a wiki, and non-computer people can help in making guidelines clearer to other non-computer people. I've already drafted part of the instructions here: this appears above an edit box to create the review page.

I've now completed all the templates needed to implement this process, and am just waiting on DHMO to replace all the current transclusions of {{GAN}} by {{GA nominee}}. Maybe I'll do it while he's asleep. Anyway, the proposed process is as follows.

• Nominators add {{subst:GAN|subtopic=name of section on GAN page}} to the top of the article talk page (the subtopic bit is optional for now); then they list the article at WP:GAN exactly as in the current process (this step could be automated in the future, but then the subtopic would be required). The proposed new GAN template is at User:Geometry guy/Misc: it supports up to 8 GA reviews, then produces an error message.
• The talk page substitution places a GA nominee template on the talk page containing a link to create a review subpage (of article talk). The proposed new GA nominee template is at User:Geometry guy/Misc2.
• Reviewers click on this link to create the review page. They are provided with instructions (above), and some preloaded text to save time. They then transclude the subpage onto article talk, and add the On Review notice at WP:GAN (this last step could be automated in the future).
• The "status=on review" condition is no longer needed on article talk: once the review page is created, the article is "on review" until the reviewer changes the status to "2nd opinion" or "on hold". That saves a bit of time.

One more question: once the review of a GAN is complete, should the transclusion of the review page onto article talk be kept or removed? Keeping it has the advantage that the position of the review in the talk page history is maintained. However, talk pages are archived, and not always in an order-preserving way, and this means that the shortcut {{/GA1}} for the transclusion can't be used, because it will break when the section is archived. Can this be left to reviewer discretion or is there a global preference? Geometry guy 19:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. I added some documentation to the proposed GA nominee template, so others can see it in action and suggest tweaks. Geometry guy 20:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now done the AWB job, but it has raised some transitional issues about current GANs with reviews which are not on a subpage. I will attempt to smooth these over, but help and suggestions would be appreciated. Geometry guy 22:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish it were. We're in a holding pattern right now, just like aircraft over Heathrow. {{GAN}} has been replaced by {{GA nominee}}. This is a stable change and not a problem, but we need to work out how to handle current reviews, before replacing the redirect at Template:GAN and updating Template:GA nominee with the templates I have created in my user space. I can comment further early morning today (UTC), but won't be able to address all issues until Monday evening UTC. Geometry guy 00:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I will have to relax the template behaviour temporarily so that it assumes page=1 when there is no page parameter. I'll sort it out tomorrow evening UTC. Meanwhile, there is probably no harm in current reviewers following the lead set by Talk:Dr. Dre and moving the review to a /GA1 subpage of article talk and replacing it with a simple transclusion, but if you don't know how to do that don't worry. Geometry guy 10:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Useful template time! I'm currently using User:DHMO/GAS (just subst it!) to set stuff up on the article's talk page, then just adding a level 3 heading on the newly formed subpage. If /GA1 exists, use {{subst:user:DHMO/GAS|2}}. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But how will the delisting process work, if proposed new scheme of GAN is implemented? There is no any centralized page of "Good articles nominated for delisting", and there is no templates, which can changed in order to implement subpage creation. Everybody can delist an article by changing Articlehistory template and writing something at the talk page (and removing the article from WP:Good articles). However if delisting process is left intact (i.e. the creation of a subpage is not necessary), it will introduce an asymmetry with GAN, which is not good in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is essential that delisting and other reassessments by individual editors generate a /GAn subpage. As well as enhancing accountability, I believe this will also encourage good practice. I will develop templates to handle this soon (it will be fairly easy now that I've drafted the GAN templates). Geometry guy 16:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Are these relevant instructions or just the first draft (section break)

With quite a few editors I am sure watching this development to see in what direction GAs are heading, and more importantly for me!, can I ask if the following is correct so at least I make a few mistakes as possible. So the instructions as I read them are:

• I add at the top of the original talk page {{GA nominee}} which gives: {{GA nominee|~~~~~|page=|subtopic=|status=}}
• complete the {{GA nominee|~~~~~|page=|subtopic=|status=}} ~~~~~ for date etc |page= (will be automatically generated) OR (create the page as below)|status= (nothing yet) |subtopic= (from the topic list it is in on the nomination page)
• at this stage complete the instructions To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. to create the sub-page.
• on this page under the existing script begin the GA review with something from an introduction to oneself, a statement of intent, the first feedback, to quick fail.Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 11:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the instructions and will comment further in a new section: I anticipate many teething problems, and a need for troubleshooting. Geometry guy 17:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Have i missed something lol

I just reviewed an article, when i put the GA template on the talk page low and be hold a GA symbol appeared in the top corner of the talk page. I took part in the debate and supported it, i lost track of the issue because of other work. Anyway, is this a perminant thing, a trial .. etc. Also is there a way to update other GA articles that dont yet have the symbol in the corner. Cheers --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sshhh! Someone might notice! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Too bad that your {{GA}} template was quickly converted over to {{ArticleHistory}} by GimmeBot,... I wonder if we can sneak that into {{ArticleHistory}}? ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Credit to blocked user SimsFan for the nice joke. I guess no one watchlists {{GA}} these days because it is autoconverted to ArticleHistory. I've reverted it now anyway. Sandy watches ArticleHistory like a hawkess so the chances of sneaking it in there are pretty slim. I think we probably have to wait for next April 1 :-) Geometry guy 20:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, looks like i wasnt in on this one, oops. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Transition to review subpages

I've now taken the key step and updated {{GAN}}, {{GA nominee}}, their documentation subpages and WP:Good article nominations/guidelines. In a nutshell the nomination process is unchanged from the process of a month ago, except that the GAN template must be substituted. This has the advantage that it automatically generates the date and the blank status parameter in the new {{GA nominee}} template. Current nominations which don't yet have a reviewer should be in the "correct" state, in which the {{GA nominee}} contains a link to start the next review page. Current nominations under review won't be in the correct state in general: reviewers need to copy the review over to a /GA1 subpage, and add "page=1" to {{GA nominee}}. Neither of these steps is essential however: in particular, for the time being the missing page parameter doesn't generate an error, but assumes "page=1". The transition will, however, undoubtedly generate some confusion, which is my main motivation for starting this section, as a place to resolve confusion.

Concerning delisting/reassessment, my own preference is to use {{subst:GAR}} both for individual and community reassessments. The template can be adapted to provide two links: one to the next free /GAn page for an individual reassessment, one to the next free WP:Good article reassessment/Article/n page for a community reassessment. Reviewers are then free to choose whether to "go it alone" or ask for general input on a reassessment. I hope this will enhance the coherence of reassessment processes. Geometry guy 18:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably once the review is completed, the page is archived with {{talkarchive}}, or similar? Gwinva (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

When the review is complete, the /GA1 subpage remains. I use User:DHMO/GAAH (you can too, instructions are at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/GA tools but ask me if you need more) which will add a link to the subpage via ArticleHistory.

Geometry guy, you are a genius. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my lack of clarity. What I meant was, do we stick {{archive top}}/{{archive bottom}} or {{talkarchive}} on the subpage so no one wanders along at a later date and starts contributing or adding to the closed discussion? Gwinva (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I guess there's no harm. I would add <includeonly>{{talkachive}}</includeonly> as it showing up on the talk page itself might get confusing. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this G-guy, your work on our behalf is very much appreciated ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No probs. I'm against adding talkarchive once the review is finished: it is unnecessary extra work and a review isn't really a talk archive. The main thing is to provide a dated permanent link to the review from the talk page, e.g. using ArticleHistory. We may also need to rethink {{GA}}, {{DelistedGA}} and {{FailedGA}} to handle this: are these for the process or the current status? Geometry guy 10:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I may be a good thing to add something to the review page. For instance, a reviewer can add {{pass}} or {{fail}} templates and then a bot will update the talk page and Articles History. The bot can modify the review page if necessay as well. In this case {{GA}}, {{DelistedGA}} and {{FailedGA}} tempalstes can be deprecated. Ruslik (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer a template on article talk, not the review page, and this is easier for a bot to process. Geometry guy 20:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this G-guy. It seems to look good. A few comments: one, what do we do about the case of a 'quick fail'? I noticed one reviewer who quick-failed an article by starting an independent section on the talk page (==GA quick fail==), instead of clicking the link on the GA review template to start review on the independent page. I believe this was one of the first reviews after the new template was added,... I wonder if it would actually be better to seriously de-emphasize and ultimately eliminate the practice of 'quick-failing'? If the goal of GA is overall article improvement, a very quick and dirty quick-fail is ultimately not helpful to editors; instead, a full review should take place, and specific areas pointed out where the article is deficient in meeting the GA criteria.

I also agree that the {{talkarchive}} isn't really appropriate here, since it's not really a talk page archive. Perhaps we could modify that template and have a 'GAarchive' template explaining that it is an archive of a GA review, and explaining the process?

Also, on your page illustrating the instructions for starting the review (and creating the review page), would it be possible to add some basic instructions on how to review an article? Perhaps a link to some of the review help pages as well as the GA criteria? This would be very useful to new reviewers especially. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

the quick fail was done "under" the auspices of a new section as I had no clear instructions on the new template and how to use it. I am still not totally clear but will struggle along when I have the time. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 18:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What about creating a new template, {{GANarchive}}, which would have a status=pass/fail parameter, and would read something like:

This is an archive of a previous GA nomination. The results of the nomination were that has passed/failed the Good Article criteria. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you disagree with this article's review, the article can be nominated for Good Article reassessment.

So effectively, once the review concludes, the reviewer can simply edit the review subpage and place this template on it, with the parameter of 'pass' or 'fail'. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems a good idea. Like {talkarchive} it can disable the [edit] tabs, visually archiving the page, and could also ultimately support a fully-automated update with status on other pages, add category to subpage, or whatever navigational/automation aids are developed later. Gwinva (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Three comments.

• I favour deemphasising and even deprecating quick-fails. I have no problem with a poor article being failed quickly, with just a few reasons being given, but there is no need to make this into a formal procedure. This is one of the pieces of unnecessary bureaucracy which I believe we can manage without.
• Once a review is complete, the review page does not need a template, article talk does. This could be done using ArticleHistory alone, but experience shows that we need to provide a simple alternative, because ArticleHistory is hard to use. At the moment Gimmebot automatically converts {{GA}} into ArticleHistory. I've set up {{Old GAR}} as a simple alternative to ArticleHistory for closing GARs. We could have a similar {{Old GAN}} template.
• Please contribute to the documentation: there is a balance to be found here between conciseness, clarity, and the provision of useful information. One editor alone cannot find this balance. You don't need template expertise to edit {{GAN/editintro}}: just ignore the html (which simply prettifies the instructions) and edit the plain-text. The only templates involving delicate hardcore template code are {{GAN}} and {{GA nominee}} and I've watchlisted both. Geometry guy 20:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I've edited the {{GAN/editintro}} template, adding a link to Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles as well as the criteria. So hopefully this will help the newbies out,... ;-) I've also adjusted the text at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles to de-emphasize the practice of "quick-failing", rephrasing it as "first things to look for" (obvious issues). Dr. Cash (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A definite improvement in both cases, thank you. Geometry guy 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A passing thought, brought about by checking my watchlist. Obviously the GA1 subpage is itself a talk page to an article that does not exist, which then appears(redlink) as page does not exist. Maybe the introductory template note might point out that the subject page does not and need not exist, though I appreciate that adding more text might become self defeating. Thanks to all for the process and the work. Well done. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have created a template, {{GAarchive}}, that reviewers can use to place at the very top of the review subpages. The template is intended to be the GA version of {{talkarchive}}, and states whether the article passed or failed the criteria, as well as puts the page into the Category:Good article reviews. I haven't really implemented this yet (added it to the instructions), so let me know if you have any suggestions first. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As suggested above, I'm not a fan of this idea, but if other reviewers want to use it (it is extra work), then I'm not going to object. I would not want it required and hence added to the already way-to-long instructions. Geometry guy 00:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV‎

Grand Theft Auto IV appears to of been failed according to the template at the top of the talkpage, yet I see no mention from the reviewer of failing the article. D.M.N. (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the reviewer have an incident prior to the article's review? Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 9#Grand Theft Auto IVfor the previous article, though this should not have stopped a report of any GA (or none if that is what happened) being put on the talk page. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 20:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Subpage problem

As a reviewer, I'ce been receiving quite a few question regarding a GA review. It's on the talk page, but there's no way to access it after it's archived by a bot. Can this be fixed? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 23:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't the review still be accessed at the /GA1 subpage, and can't its transclusion etc. still be accessed from the talk page archives? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't get this. It's not like the /GA1 subpage is being protected or anything. It should be editable whether a bot archives it or not. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the GA templates to accept a page parameter and revised the instructions accordingly. Gimmetrow will need to make some changes to Gimmebot in order for this to convert well to ArticleHistory, but they aren't to difficult, and I have the impression he wants to fix it. Geometry guy 22:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruption of consensus

What should happen if a user who has a blatant COI with an article you just reviewed and passed, because he disregarded consensus? He says that wants a theater section in the article in order to become a GA. conversation is here. miranda 04:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, after seeing some College GA's, it really doesn't matter whether there is a "theater" section in the article. Do you know if the user is familiar with the GA criteria? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The user seems to have FA and GA criteria confused and believes GAs must be comprehensive, rather than broad. Somno (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Rapid Renom

On the 28th, I failed the GAN for the six day old article Jacques Brel Is Alive and Well and Living in Paris (film) for lacking references, MoS issues, lacking basic information, a bad image, poor prose, etc. The editor did some minor changes, then renomed it today. I've already quick failed it again, as most of the issues were not addressed. The "copyediting" I recommended was done by the same editor who created the article, so it was not really done at all as he seems to be lacking basic understanding of the overall Wikipedia MoS regarding date formats/linking, placement of references, etc. The references, already scant to begin with, dropped in number from six to five, and with the vast majority of the article still being unreferenced. Suffice to say, it still is very very far from GAN.

In my second failing, I strongly urged him to wait before renoming until it is actually complete, has been assessed as B class by the Film project, and has gone through a proper peer review. I'm concerned he will ignore this advice and renom again in another few days. Is there any sort of procedure to deal with that kind of rapid renoming? Also, if he does renom, can I fail it again if it is still unfixed, or should another editor do it after I've failed it twice?-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Would someone nominate Beslan school hostage crisis?

Or Kizlyar-Pervomayskoye hostage crisis or Moscow theater hostage crisis?

I don't know how to do this (and don't want to learn), but I guess someone should. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe even featured. I don't know about this. You do. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, articles should only be nominated by someone who has worked on them or knows a lot about the subject. That way, when the reviewer brings up problems/issues with the article (which happens 99% of the time), that person is able and willing to deal with them. Sorry. Nikki311 21:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What else to do, Captain Obvious, when no one else does what should be done, but step in like a hero and do the job yourself? I've done this quite a few times (not so much like a hero, though) and have been able to bring a few articles to FA. --Moni3 (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I just worked a lot! (from 37 to 67 kb) Now I work on the Kizlyar article, which was far from perfect after all. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, both Beslan school hostage crisis and Moscow theater hostage crisis seem to be close to "good article" status. I worked with both of them (although not that much), and I know enough about the subjects. So, if people are willing to review and suggest some improvements, the Captain and me can deal with any issues.Biophys (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Request: don't make up subpage names

A number of editors have expressed some gratitude for my role in providing templates to make it easier to set-up subpages for GA reviews. I have also offered to troubleshoot problems with the change. I ask three things in return:

1. Please read the documentation, follow it, and let me know if it is unclear;
2. Do not use any nonstandard names for GA review subpages;
3. Ensure when you pass or fail an article that you retain the page parameter in the pass/fail template so that Gimmebot has a chance to know where the review is.

In the second point, the standard name for a GA review subpage is Talk:ArticleName/GAn, where ArticleName is the name of the article, and n is the number of the next free page (which is usually 1, because we've only just started). If you are reviewing a nomination, then {{subst:GAN}} will set this up automatically for you. If you are delisting, sweeping, or reassessing, templates will soon be available, but in the mean time, please don't make up subpage names. If you want to reassess (as an individual) Hoi polloi (for example), then please do so at Talk:Hoi polloi/GA1, the next free standard /GA subpage. The whole point of this change in process is to make GA reviews easy to find, and hence make GA reviews more accountable. Thank you for your help in achieving this. Geometry guy 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I just check what you mean by "as an individual"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure: if you're not confident that you can handle a sweeps/reassessment/delisting decision yourself and want further input, then please list the article on the WP:GAR page so that many editors can comment. In this case the discussion will not be stored on a /GA subpage of article talk, but on a subpage of WP:GAR. Let me know if that is not clear and sensible. Geometry guy 23:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Perfectly clear and sensible. Nice job on the templates btw. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I suspect the reason you started this was because of my sweeps update. I wasn't sure if we wanted to name a sweeps review page the same or not, so I just guessed. Anyway, thanks for fixing it, and doing all the templates. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem and thanks. Actually there have been several cases, not just your sweeps update, so I thought it would be good to clarify that the only talk subpage structure supported by this process (and for instance by Gimmebot) is /GAn. I want to use the same structure for individual reassessments/delists too, but haven't yet got the templates sorted out to support this properly. Such a change should lead to better practice for individual reassessments, and we really need it: many delists proceed as if there is no necessity to provide a proper review. If we insist on providing a proper review for nominations, then we should also provide a proper review for individual reassessments: for example, just saying "not enough inlines" and nothing more is unacceptable. At the very least reviewers must point to assertions which need inlines per WP:WIAGA. But a thorough review prior to delisting is much preferred. Think of it as a GA unnomination. Geometry guy 23:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No response

A user kindly reviewed an article I had nominated for GA status here. He/she had only one concern and I addressed it. Since then I left a note on his/her talk page here hoping the user will respond to my changes.

However, the user hasn't got back. It also appears that the user isn't a frequent and longstanding editor (his total contributions are 30). Since the user put the article on hold, there are only seven days for it to pass.

I was wondering what I should do in this position? It'd be great if someone else could also take a look at the article. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)